Re: Can anyone draw a simulation of two orbiting planets?

On Sep 4, 9:24 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 4, 12:57 am, "gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Sep 3, 6:43 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 3, 5:18 pm, "gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 3, 4:07 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 3, 3:51 pm, "gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 2, 10:11 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 2, 4:46 am, "gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 1, 3:24 pm, Igor <thoov...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 31, 4:53 am, "gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Can anyone draw (perhaps animated gif) a simulation of two orbiting
planets of SAME MASS?

I cannot image how two same mass orbits would look like? ....would
they propagate forward or remain in one constant region?

One location, which doesn't seem to make sense, says: "Since stars
have about the same mass (within a factor of 20), they both orbit
around a common point, called the center of mass, that is
significantly different from one of the star's center.".

(http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s10.htm)

No objects ever orbit around any other objects. All objects will
orbit a common center of mass under gravitational interaction.

Wonder if an atom's nucleus would also have such properties.

No, since (as you have been told many times) an electron
is not in a little Keplerian orbit around the nucleus.

- Randy- Hide quoted text -

1. There is an attraction between the nucleus and the electrons

Yes.

2. They call them orbitals

Yes, that is the name given to different states of the
energy quantum number.

They are not called "orbits", because they are not
orbits.
That's why they were given a different name.

3. These orbitals are circular or elliptical in shape

No, they aren't.

Don't make up physics.

- Randy- Hide quoted text -

#1. The s p d f orbitals are spherical (or elliptical) or donut (ring)
in shape, and one has to define what is ment by a "lower" shell or
lower energy STATE when a photon is released.

The s-orbitals are spherical. The others are not. Nor
are they elliptical. Nor are they "donut-shaped".

den wat r day...square?

Not so simply described. Hence websites that attempt
to convey the structure through words, pictures, cross-
sections and movies, such as this:http://www.orbitals.com/orb/

Quote:"For example, in a simple lowest-energy state hydrogen atom, the
electrons are most likely to be found within a ****sphere**** around
the nucleus of an atom. In a higher energy state, the shapes become
****lobes and rings****"

Childish complicates things with technicalities instead of the general
behavior. Here is one: the electron itself is a cloud.

Perhaps Randy didn't read how they determined angular momentum and
spin inside the atom. If Randy wishes to refute then Randy should
"try" to explain how angular momentum (and spin) can occur otherwise.


Not being able to "precisely" locate does NOT mean it does not exit or
does not move in a specific direction.

The above came AFTER HEISENBERG.

Randy should read Heisenberg's comments on the INABILITY to precisely
locate due to photon INTERFERENCE....why that ALSO makes things
uncertain doesn't it.


http://www.orbitals.com/orb/orbtable.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital
"Classically, the electrons were thought to orbit
the atomic nucleus, much like the planets around
the Sun (or more accurately, a moth orbiting very
quickly around a lamp)... As electrons cannot be
described as solid particles (as a planet or a moth)
in this way, a more accurate analogy would be that
of a huge atmosphere, the spatially distributed
electron, around a tiny planet which is the atomic
nucleus. Hence the term "orbit" was substituted
with something else: orbital."

http://library.thinkquest.org/3659/structures/shapes.html
"The shapes are uncertain, but predictions have been
made by experimentation. Another difficult task is
describing where an electron is. We can think of it
as a wave, and describing its exact location is
impossible for us to comprehend."

And when atoms are bound into molecules, the
orbitals become even more complex:

http://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/orbitron/

I'm remembering why I've been ignoring your childish
foot-stomping posts. Back into the circular file
with you.

- Randy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages
Loading